Employing minority groups?

BillyBoy13

Im just wondering (from an employers perspective) what do you need to know regarding employing minority groups women/coloured people (hope thats the right PC term)/disabled etc....

I had a job opening recently and I was I left myself liable by not employing a woman apparently :rolleyes:

Im not looking for legal advice on my situation, Im just looking for someone to give me some quick guidance in laymans terms ie for every 5 males you need 1 female.

seamus

There are no minimum quota requirements or anything like that in this country. You're entitled to hire who you want to hire, provided that you do not discriminate on any of the nine grounds:

- Gender
- Civil status
- Family status
- Sexual orientation
- Religion
- Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
- Disability
- Race
- Membership of the Traveller community.

If you hire someone because they are better qualified, then you've no problem.

Best practice is to keep notes for everyone you interview (those you hire and those you don't) and hold onto them for a period of time*. So if the candidate comes back asking for feedback or makes a claim that they were discriminated against, you have down on paper the actual basis that you used to assess the candidates.

If you're running a small business it would be massively worth your while investing in an interview skills course or something similar, where you can get advice not only techniques, but also the legal pitfalls, dos and don'ts, etc.

*How long a time is hard to say because you can't hold onto this information indefinitely. Maybe contact the Data Protection Commissioner to see what they advise

BillyBoy13

seamus wrote: »

There are no minimum quota requirements or anything like that in this country. You're entitled to hire who you want to hire, provided that you do not discriminate on any of the nine grounds:

- Gender
- Civil status
- Family status
- Sexual orientation
- Religion
- Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
- Disability
- Race
- Membership of the Traveller community.

If you hire someone because they are better qualified, then you've no problem.

Best practice is to keep notes for everyone you interview (those you hire and those you don't) and hold onto them for a period of time*. So if the candidate comes back asking for feedback or makes a claim that they were discriminated against, you have down on paper the actual basis that you used to assess the candidates.

If you're running a small business it would be massively worth your while investing in an interview skills course or something similar, where you can get advice not only techniques, but also the legal pitfalls, dos and don'ts, etc.

*How long a time is hard to say because you can't hold onto this information indefinitely. Maybe contact the Data Protection Commissioner to see what they advise

Perfect! Exactly what I needed to know.

Coincidentally I was actually wondering this very morning would there be such a thing as 'interviewer training'. Of course, it would need to be a short and condensed course, I cant just shut the business down for a couple of months while I go back to school, maybe a weekend course or something? Can you recommend any?

seamus

I wouldn't be able to advise on any courses, but it's definitely the kind of thing that could be covered in a weekend.

Maybe contact enterprise ireland. I'm sure they have this kind of support available for growing businesses and they'll be able to point you in the right direction.

BillyBoy13

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't be able to advise on any courses, but it's definitely the kind of thing that could be covered in a weekend.

Maybe contact enterprise ireland. I'm sure they have this kind of support available for growing businesses and they'll be able to point you in the right direction.

Thats great, I'll look into that when I can. I think it would stand to me in future if Im employing more people and to actually feel like I know what Im doing. Thanks for all the great advice

Bepolite

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Im just wondering (from an employers perspective) what do you need to know regarding employing minority groups women/coloured people (hope thats the right PC term)/disabled etc....

I had a job opening recently and I was I left myself liable by not employing a woman apparently :rolleyes:

Im not looking for legal advice on my situation, Im just looking for someone to give me some quick guidance in laymans terms ie for every 5 males you need 1 female.

Hiring a woman in place of more qualifed man would have left you open. However these things are exceptionally difficult to prove if you interview correctly. I see you're seeking some interview training, kudos to you. I would perhaps work on your PCness also. I can't imagine it's escaped you thst 'coloured' is not a term that is in current use.

Dandelion6

Bepolite wrote: »

I can't imagine it's escaped you thst 'coloured' is not a term that is in current use.

Nor are women a "minority group".

coylemj

Bepolite wrote: »

I would perhaps work on your PCness also. I can't imagine it's escaped you thst 'coloured' is not a term that is in current use.

Bizarrely, a 'person of colour' is apparently ok (it's the term Obama uses) but 'coloured' is not as you correctly pointed out. Such is the modern day minefield of political correctness, overseen by the ever-vigilant media who pillory anyone in public life who dares to step out of line, even when they innocently use the term with otherwise good intentions and absolutely no malice.

Classic example from last year.... http://www.espn.co.uk/golf/sport/story/208710.html

ABajaninCork

Actually, we call ourselves BLACK!!

Personally, I couldn't care less what I'm identified as. As long as the 'N' or 'W' words aren't used, then there's no problem. (As a smack in the mouth might offend)

BillyBoy13

Bepolite wrote: »

I would perhaps work on your PCness also. I can't imagine it's escaped you thst 'coloured' is not a term that is in current use.

As I said, I wasnt sure what the correct PC term is... but regardless, I obviously didnt mean it in a racist way and Im sure the majority of persons of colour who read it wouldn't be offended either.

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Nor are women a "minority group".

Again, I have no idea how you would legally/politically correctly define 'women' but they aren't really your first choice when employing a person and to be honest I think you are just nit-picking at this stage!

ABajaninCork

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

As I said, I wasnt sure what the correct PC term is... but regardless, I obviously didnt mean it in a racist way and Im sure the majority of persons of colour who read it wouldn't be offended either.

Most people of my generation don't. See my post below.

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Actually, we call ourselves BLACK!!

Personally, I couldn't care less what I'm identified as. As long as the 'N' or 'W' words aren't used, then there's no problem. (As a smack in the mouth might offend)

As a matter of interest - People of my parents' generation DO refer to themselves as coloured. It's a generational thing. In the same way, mixed-race people are now referred to as 'bi-racial'. It's very un-PC to call mixed-race people half-caste now. Similarly, people of Pakistani/Indian descent now refer to themselves as 'Asian'. Calling someone the 'P' word now, is considered seriously offensive.

vinnie13

i wouldnt worry about any of it,you can hire who you like.you dont have to hire the best qualified either really you can hire a less qualified person who might have a great personality and a love of the work.

anyone ever see a ann summers add looking for people to sell their goods??it says women only!!!theres sexist out and nothing about it.
cant see a argument for not hiring a person of a different skin tone i see loads of different people from all over the world working everywhere in all kinds of jobs

eigrod

seamus wrote: »

There are no minimum quota requirements or anything like that in this country. You're entitled to hire who you want to hire, provided that you do not discriminate on any of the nine grounds:

- Gender
- Civil status
- Family status
- Sexual orientation
- Religion
- Age (does not apply to a person under 16)
- Disability
- Race
- Membership of the Traveller community.

If you hire someone because they are better qualified, then you've no problem.

Best practice is to keep notes for everyone you interview (those you hire and those you don't) and hold onto them for a period of time*. So if the candidate comes back asking for feedback or makes a claim that they were discriminated against, you have down on paper the actual basis that you used to assess the candidates.

If you're running a small business it would be massively worth your while investing in an interview skills course or something similar, where you can get advice not only techniques, but also the legal pitfalls, dos and don'ts, etc.

*How long a time is hard to say because you can't hold onto this information indefinitely. Maybe contact the Data Protection Commissioner to see what they advise

Excellent advice.

To supplement it,

1) Always best to have at least 2 people interviewing and while it would be impossible to have a representative from each of the 9 grounds above, a good start would be 1 female and 1 male

2) As touched on above, all questions should relate to the applicant's competency for the job - not what they are.

3) Probably the most common mistake made is asking a question about child minding and how it might impact on the applicant's ability to do the job. AVOID ! (irrespective of whether the applicant is male or female)

4) Consistent questions for all applicants.

5) If you have an applicant with a disability - they must be treated in exactly the same way as other applicants but they must be able to do the job provided it requires only 'reasonable accommodations' by the employer. This is a very complex area and you should request special emphasis on this in any training course you might attend.

I would imagine most of the top recruitment agencies offer training on effective interviewing techniques.

Dandelion6

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Again, I have no idea how you would legally/politically correctly define 'women' but they aren't really your first choice when employing a person

:eek:

I think you have bigger problems than terminology.